Profiles in Courage

John F(itzgerald) Kennedy 1956

Introduction

Throughout his youth, John F. Kennedy suffered numerous ailments. When he endured two near-fatal spine operations in 1954, he decided to put his recovery period to good use. He and his aides (he was a U.S. Senator at the time) began a book profiling American politicians he admired for their courage and individualism in the face of party and constituent pressures. Kennedy was particularly struck by how these nine men were willing to risk their political careers to maintain the integrity of their personal value systems and their love of country. This book, of course, became Profiles in Courage, which was published in 1956.

The book won the 1957 Pulitzer Prize for biography, in addition to the American Library Association Notable Book Award and the Christopher Book Award, both in 1956. In 1989, Kennedy's brother, Senator Edward Kennedy, established an annual Profile in Courage award based on the principles set forth in the book. It is given every year on John F. Kennedy's birthday to an elected official (past or present) whose career represents courage and integrity in the face of political pressure. The prize includes $25,000 and a silver lantern. The prize is intended to keep the spirit of Profiles in Courage alive.

Author Biography

John Fitzgerald Kennedy, the author of Profiles in Courage, was born on May 29, 1917, in Brookline, Massachusetts. He was the second of nine children born to Joseph and Rose Kennedy, who pushed their children to strive to accomplish great things. Joseph was an ambitious man who pinned his political hopes on his oldest son, Joe. When Joe died in 1944, however, Joseph's attention turned to John. Although John had been sickly as a child, he was accepted into the Navy during World War II. After a 1943 incident at sea, John was declared a war hero. Kennedy's military service, family name, and excellent education (London School of Economics, Harvard, and Stanford Business School) gave him a strong start in politics. He had not planned on a political career, but he felt a sense of responsibility toward his family now that he was the oldest. Once he entered public service, he found it a rewarding path.

In 1946, Kennedy won a seat in Congress as a representative of Massachusetts, and in 1952, he became a U.S. senator. Because Republicans won most of the 1952 elections, Kennedy's victory earned him the respect of the Democratic Party. His career was developing quickly, and, in 1960, he won his party's presidential nomination. Kennedy's battle cry was a call for action and national greatness.

The 1960 election was the first in which television played a strong role in winning votes. While most commentators found that the candidates' views were not radically different, they agreed that Kennedy's poise and good looks created the perception among many voters that he was more qualified for the position. Still, his victory over Richard Nixon came by a narrow margin of only 12,000 votes.

Kennedy proved to be a dynamic and eloquent public speaker, and the American people were responsive and optimistic. In addition, Kennedy had a stylish wife and an all-American family, which contributed to his public image. In spite of all this, his presidency was a difficult one, marked by crises abroad and civil rights struggles at home. Kennedy was credited with creating a renewed sense of patriotism but was also criticized for thriving on conflict. When he was assassinated in Dallas by Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22, 1963, the nation mourned. Although historians debate the realities of Kennedy's "Camelot" years, Kennedy continues to be among Americans' favorite presidents.

Summary

Preface and Part One

In the preface to Profiles in Courage, Kennedy discusses his interest in the "problems of political courage in the face of constituent pressures, and the light shed on those problems by the lives of past statesmen." He describes the three types of pressure faced by senators: pressure to be liked, pressure to be re-elected, and pressure of the constituency and interest groups.

Kennedy provides a brief history of the U.S. Senate and moves on to his discussion of John Quincy Adams. In office, Adams supported measures he thought were best for the country, with little regard for his party's stances on various issues. Further, he would not back away from legislation—such as Jefferson's proposed embargo against the British in 1807—that would have negative consequences for his state of Massachusetts. It was this embargo, in fact, that ultimately led to Adams' status as an outcast in his own party and state.

Faced with certain replacement, Adams resigned his Senate seat. Years later, he would be elected President, a term he would serve as an independent, rather than as a member of the Federalist Party. After his White House years, Adams was asked to run for Congress, which he did under two conditions. First, he would not campaign, and second, he would serve as an independent, free of party and constituent pressures. He won by a landslide, and served in Congress until his death.

Part Two

The three men discussed in part two demonstrated courage during the years leading up to the Civil War. Kennedy commends the men who, despite constituent demands, protected the nation's unity.

Daniel Webster had always been an outspoken critic of slavery. In 1850, Henry Clay, a pro-slavery southerner, had a plan for a compromise that would keep the Union intact, but he needed Webster's support. Webster knew that everyone would be shocked at his support for a plan that negotiated with slave-holding states. Still, his top priority was to hold the Union together, so he agreed.

Webster was well known as an orator, and people came from everywhere to hear his speech favoring Clay's Compromise of 1850. Webster held everyone's attention for over three hours, and although many denounced his stance, enough people were persuaded to accept the compromise. This success cost Webster his dream of becoming president; his position on that day would forever keep him from garnering enough support.

Thomas Hart Benton was a U.S. senator from Missouri, a slave-holding state, yet he valued the Union above all. The people of Missouri began to feel that they should take sides with the southern states that wanted to secede, but Benton disagreed and never slowed his efforts to preserve the Union. He also refused to acknowledge slavery as a major issue because he believed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which brought Missouri into the Union) made slavery an issue of the past.

In 1851, Benton lost his place in the Senate, but he later returned to the House of Representatives as St. Louis' congressman. Realizing that this was his last opportunity to make a difference, he delivered a speech denouncing the Kansas-Nebraska Bill (which permitted slavery in the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska as a concession to the South and which was sponsored by Benton's own Democratic Party). Despite his political failures, his efforts on behalf of the Union prevented Missouri from joining other southern states seeking secession.

Sam Houston also took an unpopular stand against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. Houston's stance came as an unpleasant surprise to his constituents. He opposed it because it reversed the Missouri Compromise of 1820, which Houston believed to be a "solemn and sacred compact between the North and South."

When Sam Houston first became a U.S. senator, he shared the beliefs and concerns of his constituents. As time passed, Houston found himself increasingly at odds with the people he represented. While he came from a slave-holding state, he believed fervently in the preservation of the Union. His criticism of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and his opposition to secession led to the end of his Senate career. When he returned to his state, he found that the governor was encouraging secession. In 1859, Houston ran for governor of Texas and won.

As Texas' new governor, Houston found himself entrenched in the secession issue. Public sentiment grew in favor of secession, and a Secession Convention was formed. In 1860, a vote was overwhelmingly cast in favor of secession. The convention declared that Texas was part of the Confederacy and that all public officials were required to take a new oath. Houston refused and, soon after, resigned.

Part Three

Edmund G. Ross was a little-known senator who single-handedly prevented the conviction of President Andrew Johnson after Johnson was impeached. When Ross was elected to the Senate, a battle was raging between Congress and the president. The Radical Republicans (a faction of the Republican Party) planned to get rid of Johnson, but they needed a two-thirds majority to convict him after his impeachment. They never questioned Ross' intentions, but when it came time to vote, seven Republicans voted against conviction, and Ross was among them. His vote was important because the Radical Republicans had counted on it, so they lacked the number of votes needed for conviction. Ross might have enjoyed a long career in politics, but this single decision brought the end of his career in public office. Twenty years later, his reputation was restored and his act of courage was acknowledged.

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar made quite an impression in 1874 when he addressed the U.S. House of Representatives in a moving speech lamenting the death of Charles Sumner. Lamar was from Mississippi, a state plagued by the Reconstruction efforts of Sumner. Lamar's speech demonstrated his commitment to bringing peace between the North and the South despite his own background as a passionate southerner. The speech also raised Lamar's status among his colleagues, although his constituents were divided in their reactions. Lamar was harshly criticized by the people of Mississippi when, as a U.S. senator, he became involved in the close presidential race of 1876. When an Electoral Commission, approved by Lamar, gave the election to Hayes, the South was enraged and accused Lamar of accepting political bribes in exchange for his vote. Still, Lamar stood behind the action of the Electoral Commission.

A third instance brought Lamar in conflict with the people of his state. In 1877, the "free silver" movement sought free coinage of any silver. Under the free coinage system, any citizen would have been able to take silver to the U.S. mint and exchange it for its equivalent in coins. While people saw this as a solution to money problems, Lamar saw it as an economic disaster. He refused to vote in favor of it, then launched a statewide speaking tour to explain his decision. As a result, the people of Mississippi continued to support Lamar's political career, and he ultimately became a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court.

Part Four

Kennedy discusses three instances of outstanding courage displayed by George Norris of Nebraska. First, Norris managed to secure the resignation of the powerful Speaker of the House, Joe Cannon, a move that released the House from a conservative Republican stronghold. Second, in 1917, he staged a filibuster in an effort to stop President Wilson from arming American merchant ships, which Norris believed would only increase the chances of the United States entering World War I. The filibuster proved unpopular among Norris' constituents, and he worked hard to regain their trust. The filibuster ultimately failed when Wilson discovered that he did not need congressional approval to arm the ships. Third, Norris campaigned for a presidential candidate, Al Smith, who was unpopular with the people of Nebraska. Hoover won the election by a landslide, a victory that included almost every county in Nebraska. Despite his political failures, Norris expressed satisfaction that he always stood for what he believed, which is what was most important to him.

Robert A. Taft was known for voicing his opinions, but when he made an unprompted speech criticizing the Nuremberg trials and their death sentences, he earned harsh reprimands from his party. Going into the election of 1946, the Republicans expected great success. When Taft (a Republican) delivered his speech, they feared that it would cost them valuable seats in Congress. Taft felt that the injustice done during the trials was too much to ignore, and he voiced his disapproval. Taft did not advocate any of the actions taken by the Nazis during World War II. However, he felt that the trials and their strict punishments were designed after the fact; the war criminals had no way of knowing that they might later be charged and sentenced to death for actions taken in war.

While public sentiment turned against Taft, Republicans waited nervously. By the time the election was held, Republicans won the seats they had expected to win, and there was no long-term damage done by Taft's speech.

Kennedy concludes the book with a brief discussion of other men of political courage, emphasizing that such courage is not a thing of the past.

Key Figures

John Quincy Adams

The son of former President John Adams and his wife, Abigail, John Quincy Adams was groomed from a young age for a political career. His education was overseen by his parents, who also instilled in young Adams a Puritan morality that would inform his political decisions in adulthood. Despite the privileges of his upbringing, feelings of inadequacy and a fear of failure plagued Adams. These qualities did not impede his progress as a statesman and he served as a U.S. senator, as president, as a member of the House of Representatives, and as an ambassador abroad.

Until his father's death, Adams maintained a close relationship with the elder Adams, whose approval he constantly sought. When, while serving in the U.S. Senate for Massachusetts, Adams found himself alone because of his ideals, he took comfort in the fact that his parents never abandoned him. Their support seemed to validate Adams' determination to pursue what he believed was best for the country, regardless of party and constituent pressures.

After creating controversy in the Senate, Adams resigned before he could be ousted. Later, however, he served as president from 1825 to 1829. He had earned the respect of the people of Massachusetts, who asked that he run for a seat in the House of Representatives. He agreed to do so only under the conditions that he do no campaigning and that he serve according to his own conscience, not as an extension of a party or of his constituents. He won overwhelmingly, and served in the House until his death.

Thomas Hart Benton

A "rough and tumble fighter off and on the Senate floor," Thomas Hart Benton had a reputation as a man who would not shrink from a fight and who usually won. As Missouri's first senator, Benton served from 1821 to 1844. He was extremely popular with his constituents and never had any worries about being re-elected. When Missouri, a slave-holding state, started to lean toward joining the southern states in the plan to secede, Benton would not hear of it. Above all, he valued the Union, a stance he would hold so firmly that it would ultimately cost him his Senate seat. His position was also weakened by his refusal to debate slavery on the Senate floor because he assumed that the Missouri Compromise of 1820 (which brought Missouri into the Union) had taken care of that issue for his state.

After being replaced in the Senate, Benton returned to Congress as St. Louis' representative in the House. Even though he knew it would cost him re-election, he delivered an impassioned speech against the Kansas-Nebraska Bill (which permitted slavery in the new territories of Kansas and Nebraska as a concession to the South) that his party supported. He was not re-elected, and his future attempts to win senatorial and gubernatorial elections failed. Despite his failed political career, he managed to accomplish the one thing that meant the most to him: Missouri did not join the secessionist states.

Benton had been a strong proponent of opening the West, playing a pivotal role in the development of the Pony Express, the telegraph line, and highways into major cities. He had only completed one year of college but prided himself on his ability to remember most of the books he read. When a fellow senator got confused about a name or date, Benton took great pleasure in locating the fact in a book and sending the information to his colleague. Benton also thrived on learning from people from diverse backgrounds.

Sam Houston

Sam Houston's background was colorful and adventure-filled. As a boy, he ran away from his Tennessee home and joined the Cherokee Indians, who adopted him. He later re-entered white society in Tennessee, becoming governor. He served until his sudden resignation after discovering that his new bride was in love with another man. Houston returned to the Cherokees until Andrew Jackson, Houston's commander during the War of 1812, sent him to Texas on a military mission. There Houston began a new life.

Houston was the first president of Texas when it was an independent republic, and later became Texas' first U.S. senator. Although he came from a slave-holding state, he opposed the Kansas-Nebraska Bill. This bill overturned the Missouri Compromise, which had banned slavery from the territory that became Kansas and Nebraska. To Houston, the Missouri Compromise was sacred, and he believed in preserving the Union above all. Although he was a Southerner by "birth, residence, loyalty, and philosophy," his first priority was to his country. He was a forceful, outspoken, and independent figure in the Senate; an ambitious and principled man who ultimately sacrificed his political career for his beliefs.

Media Adaptations

• A television series based on Kennedy's book was produced by Robert Saudek Associates in 1964. It won the 1965 Peabody Award, a prize recognizing outstanding achievement in television. The series starred Walter Matthau, Burgess Meredith, and Carroll O'Connor.
• In 1989, Caedmon Audio Cassettes released an audio adaptation of Profiles in Courage. The narrator for this audio version was Kennedy's son, John F. Kennedy Jr.

After losing his seat in the Senate, Houston returned to Texas and became governor. When Texas chose to secede, however, Houston could no longer be a part of Texas politics. He resigned, refusing to let Texas separate from the Union.

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar

Lucius Quintus Cincinnatus Lamar of Mississippi was an eloquent speaker who abandoned his hatred for the North in favor of reconciliation and unity. He surprised his fellow congressmen when, in 1874, he delivered a moving speech lamenting the death of Charles Sumner, a man who had been an enemy of the South, which Lamar loved so dearly. This speech demonstrated Lamar's deep commitment to mending the relationship between the North and the South although his constituents did not all see his point of view. There were other instances of Lamar conflicting directly with the people of his state, but Lamar followed his conscience and sense of right rather than the tide of public sentiment. Ultimately, the people of Mississippi came to respect and support him throughout a long political career. He served as a U.S. senator, as chairman of the Senate Democratic Caucus, as secretary of the Interior, and as a justice on the United States Supreme Court.

Lamar had a relatively happy childhood on a plantation although he grew up without his father, who committed suicide when Lamar was young. Lamar showed an early interest in and aptitude for studying, and his love of books stayed with him throughout his life.

George Norris

George Norris' acts of courage did not always lead to success, but he never regretted following the dictates of his own sense of morality. Not only did Norris act courageously in the face of political opposition, he also displayed courage when he made choices that conflicted with his constituency. He held a filibuster against Woodrow Wilson, who wanted to arm American merchant ships. The filibuster succeeded temporarily; then, Wilson discovered that he did not need congressional approval after all. Norris' efforts, however, caused dissent at home in Nebraska, and he addressed his public in an eloquent speech that soon won over the voters of the state. Norris also backed an unpopular presidential candidate in 1928. Although Norris seemed to be the only person in Nebraska campaigning for Al Smith, he did so tirelessly. Smith was beaten handily by Herbert Hoover.

Norris had a difficult childhood. His father died when he was young, and Norris worked to support his mother and ten sisters when he was only a teenager. As an adult, he pursued careers in teaching and law before entering the political arena. As a politician, he was idealistic, independent, and willing to fight for his beliefs. He could also be emotional and vindictive, sometimes engaging in personal attacks rather than focusing on the issues. He usually conducted himself professionally, however. He was known for his honesty, mild manners, and preference for staying home and reading instead of engaging in Washington social life.

Edmund G. Ross

Edmund G. Ross entered the U.S. Senate as an undistinguished freshman but left as an outcast. He shocked his party members by thinking for himself and voting as he saw fit. When Ross became a senator, he found that a war was being waged between the legislative and executive branches of the government. Further, the Radical Republicans (a faction of the Republican Party) had plans to get rid of President Johnson by impeaching him. They succeeded in impeaching Johnson and went on to the conviction phase of the trial, believing that they had the necessary votes to convict the president.

Although Ross had agreed with Radical Republican policies for much of his term in office, he shocked the party by voting against conviction. He did not believe that Johnson was given a fair trial, so he could not in good conscience vote for his removal from office. This was a pivotal vote because party leaders had counted on it, and without it they lacked the number of votes needed. As a result, Johnson finished out his term, and Ross' political career came to an end with the next election.

Twenty years later, Ross' reputation was redeemed when the act under which the Radical Republicans had attempted to convict Johnson was repealed. At that time, Ross was seen as a visionary and man of justice.

Robert A. Taft

The son of President William Taft, Robert A. Taft harbored his own ambitions to become president. He was respected as a man who voiced his opinions and stuck by his principles, regardless of adversity. Kennedy notes, "Examples of his candor are endless and startling." One example was in 1946, a month before the elections. Taft's party, the Republicans, expected to win valuable seats, and they looked forward to this time with great optimism. When Taft learned about the Nuremberg trials, he became incensed. He did not believe that the Nazi war criminals were innocent of wrongdoing, he believed that the trials themselves—and the strict death penalties that came with guilty verdicts—were unjust. Taft wondered how the Nazis could have known that they would be subject to a trial by the rest of the world, a trial in which they could lose their lives. These crimes had never been formally recognized in international law. Although there was no occasion for Congress to address this matter, Taft felt he had to speak out against the trials.

For his denouncement of the trials, Taft's constituents and party members criticized him. The latter feared that this brash act would cost the Republicans in the upcoming elections. Meanwhile, the Democrats delighted in the scandal that ensued and hoped that this event would sway voters' opinions their way. Taft was disappointed in the harsh criticism he endured, but when the time came for elections, his speech seemed to have no impact on voter behavior. The Republicans swept the election after the frenzy calmed down. Even after experiencing the consequences of his decision, Taft did not regret voicing his opinion.

Daniel Webster

Daniel Webster, a leading critic of slavery, was approached by Henry Clay with his idea for a compromise between the slave-holding and free states. Both senators knew the compromise would come under attack from both sides, but they also knew it might be the last hope of preventing southern states from seceding. Despite his objections to slavery, Webster agreed to give Clay his support, and even delivered a controversial speech for what became known as the Missouri Compromise. Although his actions succeeded for a time in preventing secession, they came at great personal sacrifice. Webster had to let go of his dream of ever becoming president of the United States.

Webster was known for his speaking abilities. Kennedy writes, "A very slow speaker, hardly averaging a hundred words a minute, Webster combined the musical charm of his deep organ-like voice, a vivid imagination, an ability to crush his opponents with a barrage of facts." While Kennedy acknowledges Webster's amazing skill as an orator, he also notes that Webster was a flawed man who saw nothing wrong with accepting money and gifts as political favors. Although his moral character may have been questionable, Webster was responsible, according to Kennedy, for temporarily holding the United States together at a time when the Union was very fragile.

Themes

Political Courage

From the very beginning, Kennedy is clear that the purpose of his book is to present examples of political courage. He draws from the history of the U.S. Senate and the men of integrity who served there in the past. The first line of chapter one is, "This is a book about the most admirable of human virtues—courage." He adds toward the end of the chapter that the stories he relates in Profiles in Courage are worth remembering, as are:

the stories of other senators of courage—men whose abiding loyalty to their nation triumphed over all personal and political considerations, men who showed the real meaning of courage and a real faith in democracy, men who made the Senate of the United States something more than a mere collection of robots dutifully recording the views of the constituents, or a gathering of time-servers skilled only in predicting and following the tides of public sentiment.

Kennedy follows through on his promise to the reader that he will demonstrate, through historical examples, what the meaning of political courage is. He shows how John Quincy Adams, a man plagued by a sense of inadequacy, found it in himself to stand up against his party and his people to support an embargo that would hurt his home state of Massachusetts. He did this, Kennedy writes, because his vision was for a stronger America, not just a stronger Massachusetts. In the example of Sam Houston, Kennedy provides a portrait of a man who favors the Union above all, despite the fact that he comes from a slave-holding state whose citizens push for secession. In the story of Edmund G. Ross, the reader learns about a low-profile man who, in the face of extreme political pressure, cast the deciding vote against President Johnson's conviction. In each case, the senator sacrificed his political ambitions in a single act of courage that represented his values.

Pressures on Political Figures

In the first chapter, Kennedy describes three types of pressures endured by public figures. The first is the pressure to be liked, which Kennedy states is a human desire shared by most people. He adds that for a senator, being liked often requires the ability to compromise. Compromise, he argues, is not a sign of weak morals or lack of fortitude, but rather the wise realization that in order to get anything done, it is often necessary to make compromises. The second pressure is for re-election. Senators want to develop long careers in which they have many opportunities to enact change, defend what they believe is right, and fight what they believe is wrong. In order to do so, they must always be aware of their next elections. Kennedy explains that in politics, people are expected to make great personal sacrifices for the public good, and by demonstrating their commitment to doing so, they increase their chances of re-election. The third type of pressure is that of the constituency, the special interest groups, and all other organized groups that include the people the senator is supposed to represent. Kennedy writes that even though particular groups may comprise only a small percentage of the senator's public, they cannot be ignored or belittled.

As he relates the stories of the senators and congressmen, Kennedy subtly reminds the reader of the pressures faced by these public figures. In the case of John Quincy Adams, for example, all three types of pressure are clearly described. Kennedy remarks that Adams was a man of principle, but was not particularly likeable. The pressure to be reelected is one that Adams makes a conscious decision to disregard when he takes positions that conflict with the attitudes of his party and the people of Massachusetts. Without party support and the admiration of the people back home, he realizes he has little chance of being re-elected, yet he makes decisions based on his own conscience. The third type of pressure is clear when Adams begins to receive hateful letters from party members back home. He realizes that he has distanced himself from the pressure of his constituents, but he feels he has no choice.

Topics for Further Study

• Kennedy obviously valued courage and was inspired by the examples of it he found in American political history. What is a quality that you especially admire and respect? After you have chosen one, focus on a particular field (such as music, art, literature, etc.) and compile a list of five people whom you feel represent the quality you have chosen. Create a draft of your own Profiles in _____ by making an outline or by writing a few paragraphs for each person you chose. After you are finished, go back and write a one-paragraph preface, explaining why you believe this quality is so admirable.
• Use the library and/or the Internet to find portraits of the men Kennedy profiled in his book. How does the art reflect the same courage, patriotism, and passion that Kennedy depicts in his book? What choices (colors, expressions, settings, etc.) did the artists make to communicate the characters of these statesmen? How do these paintings make you feel?
• Research the history of the two-party system in American politics. Create brief summaries of the political views of major parties, past and present. Do you think the United States will always have a two-party system? Why or why not?
• Think about political events of the past few years. Come up with a nomination for someone you think deserves to be included in Profiles in Courage. It must be someone who is in politics, but you may choose anyone in local, state, or federal government. Write a short essay in the style of Kennedy in which you make a case for this person's inclusion.

Kennedy emphasizes that these three sources of pressure must not be ignored. The author adds that it is very difficult for a politician to decide at what point he is willing to risk denying one of these pressures in order to uphold a value or principle. Such decisions are at the heart of Profiles in Courage.

Style

Historical Survey

In writing Profiles in Courage, Kennedy's intention was to make a specific case about the importance of courage, and to do so within a straightforward historical context. He does not set out to produce a piece of biased propaganda in which the stories are dramatized for effect, but rather to provide an honest look at nine individuals. His presentation of facts has the feel of a textbook, and the author makes a point of including some comments about the people's flaws as well as their virtues. As a result, the reader has a better sense of what kind of person each senator was and sees that his human frailties did not impede his courageous intentions.

Another way in which Kennedy gives his book a sense of history is through the inclusion of context for each section. At the beginning of part one, he describes the political climate of the time before introducing the story of John Quincy Adams. Similarly, at the beginning of part two, he explains the state of the country as it edged nearer to civil war over the issue of slavery. This explanation provides a necessary context for understanding the passion with which Daniel Webster, Thomas Hart Benton, and Sam Houston fought for keeping the Union intact. By presenting these historical contexts at the beginning of each section, Kennedy helps the reader understand the pressures faced by each senator and how political courage emerged under each set of circumstances.

Within each profile, Kennedy keeps his story focused, avoiding bringing in too many specific pieces of legislation. Kennedy concentrates on a few key events and bills so that the reader understands what was at stake with each one, and how some of the stories overlap. Kennedy introduces the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, for example, in the discussion of Thomas Hart Benton and again in the discussion of Sam Houston. After reading these two profiles, the reader not only understands that particular bill, but also how it affected the lives and decisions of political figures of the time. Had Kennedy piled each chapter with numerous events, bills, letters, and interactions, readers would become confused and lose sight of the basic premise of the book. Instead, the author teaches a history lesson while clearly portraying an act of courage.

Inspirational Tone

Kennedy's skill as a public speaker is reflected in Profiles in Courage, and the tone often becomes inspirational. His sense of timing is well suited for this book, as the narrative never becomes heavy-handed. In praising the courageous, he writes in chapter one, "And only the very courageous will be able to keep alive the spirit of individualism and dissent which gave birth to this nation, nourished it as an infant, and carried it through its severest tests upon the attainment of its maturity." Statements like this serve to pull the reader into the reality of courage, reminding him or her that courage is not limited to those in public office. The author makes the reader feel proud to be an American, part of a country with a noble tradition. In chapter four, Kennedy describes the seeming failures of Thomas Hart Benton: "But even in death and defeat, Thomas Hart Benton was victorious. For his voice from the past on behalf of the Union was one of the deciding factors that prevented Missouri from yielding to all the desperate efforts to drive her into secession along with her sister slave states." Kennedy seems to remind the reader that what often seems like defeat is actually victory, and that victory does not always come with a grand gesture but rather in simple results.

With the example of Edmund G. Ross, Kennedy demonstrates that someone who appears to be the most susceptible to public pressures can turn out to be the most courageous individual. He writes in chapter seven, "But with no experience in political turmoil, no reputation in the Senate, no independent income and the most radical state in the Union to deal with, Ross was judged to be the most sensitive to criticism and the most certain to be swayed by expert tactics." Kennedy goes on to show that anyone, even someone in as vulnerable a position as Ross, can muster the courage to face down the most intimidating circumstances. This is an inspiring lesson from a personal point of view and from a historical point of view. The reader feels that not only can anyone display great courage when principles are on the line, but also that America is a country where all members of Congress have equal power when it comes to voting.

Historical Context

Cold War

After the United States ended World War II by dropping two atomic bombs on Japan, the frightening reality of atomic weaponry was undeniable. Americans believed that a strong government could only remain strong if it was backed by a strong military defense. A strong anti-communist sentiment ran through the public consciousness in the early 1950s, and the knowledge that communist nations were building up their nuclear armaments (the Soviet Union had its first successful atomic bomb test in 1949) led the United States to continue building up its own nuclear weapons stores. This effort was not only supported, but demanded, by the public, whose fear of communism was reaching hysteria. The demand for high-tech weapons was so intense, in fact, that many private companies were able to go into business making missiles and bombs. Such companies often hired retired military officers as their top executives.

As the East and the West built up their stockpiles of nuclear weapons, the "arms race" escalated. Each side, fearful of being attacked and overtaken by the other, steadily built more and more weapons of mass destruction. This created an atmosphere of dread and panic, and many Americans began building fallout shelters in which they would retreat in the event of a nuclear war.

As a result of the fear of communism in the United States, Senator Joseph McCarthy further whipped public emotions into a frenzy by making accusations that members of the United States government were communists. McCarthy's accusations led to the destruction of many innocent people's careers, not only in politics but in entertainment and virtually every other industry at the time.

At a time of emotional and political excess, it was natural for Kennedy to seek out and spotlight past leaders who had remained steady and true to their principles in similarly emotional times.

Patriotism of the 1950s

Having emerged victorious and powerful from World War II, Americans enjoyed a strong sense of patriotism in the early 1950s. The country was a dominant force in world politics, the economy was booming, and people were enjoying affluence and the amenities that came with it. The middle class was growing, and more and more families found themselves able to purchase cars, televisions, appliances, and other luxuries.

In 1952, war hero Dwight D. Eisenhower ran for president at the age of sixty-two. He became a president everyone looked to as a sort of father figure, but also as one who had helped defeat the Nazis and protect the American way of life. Eisenhower had a kind face and gentle smile, and enjoyed playing golf. His personality seemed to reflect the pleasant lifestyle and commitment to military strength that characterized public sentiment.

The patriotism of the time, and the public's generally favorable opinion of political leaders, may have added to the popular success of Kennedy's book, which holds up political leaders as heroes.

Civil Rights

The 1950s saw the beginnings of the civil rights movement that would gain momentum and make great strides in the 1960s. The movement began with efforts at desegregation. There were inconsistencies in American society that became too obvious to ignore. For example, major league baseball teams had African-American players, yet schools were still not open to both races. As rock and roll became popular with teenagers, they realized that much of the music they enjoyed came from African-American singers and writers. Parents were uncomfortable seeing their teenagers dancing to this music, yet when white singers performed the same songs, they were at ease. African Americans refused to accept such double standards, and they began to organize their efforts to receive equal treatment.

The demand for equal rights was motivated by both social and economic factors. Not only did African Americans want to be welcome in public schools and restaurants, but they also wanted to have the same work opportunities enjoyed by white citizens. Although progress was slow, and efforts were often met with violence, the foundation laid in the 1950s paved the way for the great strides made in the next decade.

In Profiles in Courage, Kennedy shows readers time after time in history when Americans were sharply divided yet found ways to resolve their conflicts and come together as a nation again. More specifically, some of the men Kennedy profiles achieved greatness in the context of resolving bitter divides over slavery and racial issues.

Critical Overview

Critical reception of Profiles in Courage was generally favorable although a few critics expressed doubt about Kennedy's sole authorship. Critics who applauded the book found it to be a work of integrity, honoring political grace in past statesmen while acknowledging that there are contemporary statesmen who exhibit the same strength of character. They were delighted to see a high-profile politician like Kennedy (who was a United States senator at the time of publication) produce such a thought-provoking historical review of other senators. A reviewer for Publishers Weekly noted that the text "is a straightforward discussion of patriots" and that the content is "dry and safe" rather than being colored by overt political bias. Critics like Dean Hammer of Journal of American Culture noted that Kennedy's presentation of these past political figures promoted his own goals while offering a new perspective of government as something formed of individual decisions and actions rather than as a series of mundane processes.

Compare & Contrast

• 1956: Political figures often draw on America's history for material in their public speeches and writing. Just as Kennedy explores examples of past courage in the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives, other high-ranking officials often address the American public by quoting past statesmen.

  Today: Political figures continue to draw on America's past when addressing the public. This demonstrates respect for the wisdom of those who served in the past. In his first speech as President-elect, George W. Bush reminds listeners of an election in early American history and then quotes the man elected, Thomas Jefferson.

• 1956: Two parties, the Democrats and the Republicans, dominate the government. This two-party system is described by Kennedy at every phase of the U.S. Senate's history, starting as early as 1800, although the parties have changed.

  Today: Today, the Democrats and the Republicans remain the two dominant political parties. Other parties, such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, are garnering more support, but they are still far from representing a real threat to either of the dominant parties.

• 1956: Communism is on the rise, the Cold War is in full force, and elected officials like Kennedy look to the past to find examples of political courage and integrity. It is an uncertain time in which many Americans feel threatened, and lessons from the past provide wisdom and comfort.

  Today: Communism is in decline, the Cold War is over, and the United States has improved relations with countries such as Russia (formerly part of the Soviet Union) and China. Americans do not live in constant fear of nuclear attack or of an internal communist threat.

The value of Profiles in Courage as a historical text has brought it into alignment with other great historical works. In a discussion of the ancient essayist Plutarch and his famous Lives, C. J. Gianakaris of Twayne's World Authors Series noted that the assembling of "lives according to a common axis of belief, action, or role remains a valid entry into history today, as witness the great popularity of the late President John F. Kennedy's bookProfiles in Courage. " Clearly, the members of the Board of Trustees of Columbia University, who decide on the winners of the Pulitzer Prize, were thoroughly impressed by the literary merit and the worthwhile content of Kennedy's book. They awarded the book the Pulitzer Prize for biography in 1957.

Some critics and historians expressed doubt that Kennedy had written the book alone, or even that he had written it at all. While it is true that some of Kennedy's aides assisted him in his initial drafts of the book (written while he was recovering from spinal operations in 1954), Kennedy claimed the book as his own. Charges that the book was ghostwritten led to studies, the best-known of which was conducted by Herbert Parmet, whose book Jack: The Struggles of J. F. K., offered evidence that the book was actually written by a research team at George Washington University. Still, the merits of the book were not tarnished by these allegations, and Kennedy is still regarded by the public as the author of the work.

Criticism

Jennifer Bussey

Bussey holds a master's degree in interdisciplinary studies and a bachelor's degree in English literature. She is an independent writer specializing in literature. In the following essay, she offers a possible explanation for John F. Kennedy's inclusion of the men he wrote about in Profiles in Courage . By reviewing the historical and cultural context, she identifies qualities in some of the nine stories that may have had relevance for the time of the book's publication.

Although most readers associate John F. Kennedy with the 1960s, Profiles in Courage was written while he was recovering from spinal operations in 1954. At the time, Kennedy was a U.S. senator from Massachusetts, not yet aware of the political future that awaited him. While most readers can readily identify the dominant social and political forces of the latter part of Kennedy's career, many Americans have a distorted view of what life was like in the 1950s. Contrary to popular belief, it was not merely a carefree time of sock hops, meatloaf dinners, and dates at the malt shop. This is the image of the 1950s perpetuated by television and media, but there were also frightening and troubling elements of the time.

In the early 1950s, America was in the grip of the Cold War. Citizens and politicians alike feared the spread of communism, and it was common knowledge that communist countries were stockpiling nuclear weapons. Many Americans built fallout shelters, and children were taught how to take cover in the event of an attack while they were at school. The panic associated with communism fueled McCarthyism, a movement in which people in government, entertainment, and virtually every other industry were accused of having communist leanings with devastating consequences to their careers and lives.

Great strides in science were bringing both optimism and fear. While Americans wanted to stay ahead of the Soviets, they also recognized that science had created the atomic bomb. Much scientific research was focused on weapons development, but there was also hope that science would conquer polio, a crippling disease that struck children more often than adults. Polio was such a dreaded disease that a 1954 Gallup poll found that more people knew about vaccine tests than knew the name of the president. The following year, Jonas Salk's vaccine was administered on a widespread basis, paid for by the government.

Socially, America was entering a troubled time, as African Americans began to demand equal treatment and opportunity. Progress was slow in the beginning, and often violent, but the 1950s paved the way for the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

In light of these turbulent forces, why was Kennedy compelled to write Profiles in Courage, and why did he include the individuals he did? As a young senator, he was certainly aware of the challenges facing public officials and also of the hopes and fears of the public. Perhaps he found wisdom and comfort in the stories and hoped that by compiling them, he could offer hope to his fellow politicians and to the public as a whole. It seems that Kennedy was drawing on the unique American tradition for insight into how to handle these concerns while at the same time looking for some assurance that America had overcome equally trying times in the past.

What Do I Read Next?

• The classic Democracy in America, originally published in 1835, is the work of the French writer Alexis de Toqueville, who came to the United States in 1830 primarily to study the prison system. What he learned far exceeded his expectations, and his observations of American life and politics continue to be studied today by students of history and politics.
• James N. Giglio has written more than one book about Kennedy. In The Presidency of John F. Kennedy (1992), he presents an unbiased view of Kennedy's term in the White House. Giglio does not shy away from the ugly sides of the presidency, nor does he deny the successes and cultural impact of President Kennedy.
• Written by Alexander Hamilton, John Jay, and James Madison, The Federalist Papers (first published in 1788) contains the arguments set forth by these early statesmen in support of the proposed Constitution. Hamilton, Jay, and Madison applaud the document as the foundation of a government that respects the inherent rights of its citizens.
• Mary Beth Norton's Liberty's Daughters: The Revolutionary Experience of American Women, 1750-1800 (1996) provides an overview of the role of women in early America. It serves as a complementary text to Kennedy's review of American statesmen.
• Herbert Parmet's 1983 Jack: The Struggles of John F. Kennedy provides an overview of the many difficulties Kennedy faced throughout his political career. The book also contains Parmet's case that Profiles in Courage was ghostwritten.
• Richard Reeves's President Kennedy: Profile in Power (1994) introduces newly released documents in a behind-the-scenes look into Kennedy's administration. Reeves strives to portray Kennedy as he really was, complete with strengths and flaws. This book offers a thorough look at Kennedy's presidency from the well-known events to the lesser-known political and personal developments.

Each profile offers a lesson that could be applied to the tumultuous times in which Kennedy wrote the book. In the example of John Quincy Adams, the author portrays a strong man who (despite his nagging self-doubt) takes a nonpartisan stance. Adams approached his seat in the Senate with a sense of responsibility to his own morality, and even though he was new in the Senate, he did not display freshman hesitance when it came time to take a stand. He was not intimidated because his priority was pursuing the good of the country, not the good of his state or party. This example offered hope at a time when McCarthyism had shown how destructive extreme conformity could be. If more people had displayed courage against McCarthy in the initial stages of his "red scare," perhaps he would have been stopped before so many politicians were too intimidated to do anything but go along and so many people's careers were destroyed.

Daniel Webster used his ability as a stirring public speaker to support an unexpected cause, Henry Clay's Compromise of 1850. In the process, he managed to garner enough support for the compromise to see it passed, but he sacrificed his political ambition to become president along the way. His commitment was to the Union, not to his party or even to himself. Although he hated slavery, he agreed with Clay that this compromise was the only way to keep the Union intact. This idea could be applied to the civil rights struggle in which the two sides were adamant about their positions. White citizens wanted to maintain separation, while African Americans were ready to claim their rightful entrance into mainstream society. Because neither side was willing to budge, conflict became heated and violent, and the more the struggle continued, the more difficult it was for the two sides to have a meaningful dialogue about the issues. Perhaps Kennedy wished there were a Daniel Webster for his time.

The example of Thomas Hart Benton offers lessons in many areas. His political career was characterized by his refusal to give up his fight to preserve the Union. At heart, he only wanted to see America stay together through seemingly insurmountable struggles. When he lost his seat in the Senate, he returned to Congress as a representative in the House. He never tired of fighting for his beliefs, and as a result, his state of Missouri did not join the secessionist states. Benton's story reminds politicians and citizens alike of the importance of perseverance, whether in seeking a cure for polio or in fighting the spread of communism. His story also demonstrates that even when it seems that the battle has been lost, there is often a single meaningful victory to show for all the hard work.

Sam Houston's story is about a man who loved his state and his country so much that he sacrificed his reputation in an effort to keep the two united. When Texans eventually chose to secede, Houston refused to serve as the leader in a situation that broke his heart. He was not a man who sought power at any cost; he valued unity above personal glory. This lesson seems to relate to McCarthyism because if politicians had refused to take part in the bogus communist investigations, McCarthyism would have lost momentum. Instead, many people clung to their positions of power, even when it meant getting caught up in the destructive tide of McCarthyism. The "red scare," like secession, was a deeply divisive event that damaged unity and the strength in numbers that accompanies it.

The last man profiled is Robert A. Taft, whose example represented what Kennedy seemed to think was best about the American system of government. A respected Republican, Taft was known for speaking his mind without regard for what was popular at the time. On the brink of a great election year (1946) for Republicans, Taft gave a surprising speech in which he condemned the Nuremberg trials and the death sentences they handed out. While he in no way agreed with the extreme and inhumane measures taken by the Nazis during World War II, he questioned the validity of bringing the war criminals to trial after the fact. His reasoning was that at the time they committed the acts, there was no legal standard by which they were breaking the law; much less would they have been aware that they would face a death sentence if found guilty.

Needless to say, Taft's speech was not met with praise and admiration. In his home state of Ohio, people harshly criticized him, and on Capitol Hill, his party leaders reprimanded him for endangering the upcoming elections. The Democrats were delighted because they thought this speech would enhance their chances of claiming more victories. Eventually, however, the frenzy died down and the Republicans enjoyed the victories they had expected.

In light of these turbulent forces, why was Kennedy compelled to write Profiles in Courage when he did? … Perhaps he found wisdom and comfort in the stories and hoped that by compiling them, he could offer hope to his fellow politicians and to the public as a whole."

Kennedy presents Taft's story as an example of courage because Taft risked his own political ambitions (he wanted to follow in his father's footsteps and become president) for the sake of voicing what he knew would be an unpopular idea. Because he felt it needed to be said and because he lived in a country where people are free to speak openly, he did so. His courage was, according to Kennedy, in taking a stand against public opinion regardless of the personal consequences. This is ultimately what each of the nine stories teaches. While it is important to align oneself with organizations that represent a set of shared beliefs and values, it is more important to think for oneself. That is the gift that America gives its people—the right to think, act, and speak independently. It is strength of character, however, that determines whether an individual will seize that right. In a time of both hope and uncertainty, Kennedy must have hoped that Americans would see in Profiles in Courage examples of statesmen they could not only admire but also emulate; statesmen who showed a kind of courage that was as much needed in the 1950s as it had been in history.

Source:

Jennifer Bussey, Critical Essay on Profiles in Courage, in Nonfiction Classics for Students, The Gale Group, 2001.

Joyce Hart

Hart is a published writer with a background in literature and creative writing. In the following essay, she looks at the price of courage in the lives of four of the senators portrayed in Kennedy's Profiles in Courage .

John F. Kennedy ends his Pulitzer Prize-winning book Profiles in Courage with his definition of courage. Or at least he tries to define it. He can't quite put his finger on a specific definition, but he does know what courage requires, what it may cost an individual, and finally what courage means to democracy. He concludes that courage—this abstract concept that he can only allude to through stories about people who have displayed it through the resolution of conflict—is the "basis of all human morality." The conflicts that the people in his stories faced, although set in the political arena, affected more than just their political careers. And maybe that was the most compelling reason to choose these particular men to use as models for his definition of courage. The conflicts they faced affected their health, their families, and their finances, in other words, every aspect of their lives.

It is through the telling of their struggles that Kennedy hopes to inspire every citizen to become "monuments of individual conscience," despite the cost, "in spite of personal consequences, in spite of obstacles, dangers and pressures." He points out that although most of the stories he has written in this book seem to end unhappily, he believes that in the long run, each one of the senators involved was a hero. And it is to the hero in each citizen that Kennedy appeals. Each person has a responsibility both to his own conscience and to the conscience of the nation of which they are a part. He reminds everyone that they are the government. "For, in a democracy, every citizen … is in a position of responsibility … the kind of government we get depends upon how we fulfill those responsibilities." Toward this end, toward the task of inspiring courage, Kennedy retells portions of the lives of men he admired. The conclusions of each of his stories, the points that contain the most inspiration are the details that convey the price that these courageous men had to pay.

One of the main conflicts that several of these stories discuss is the struggle that many of the senators had to suffer in choosing between what their constituents wanted them to do and what their conscience dictated as the correct path to follow for the sake of the nation. The price that each paid for eventually following the dictates of their conscience varied for each man. For instance, Kennedy begins his book with a story about John Quincy Adams. Adams held more offices in the U.S. government and "participated in more important events than anyone in the history of our nation," states Kennedy. Among the offices he held were emissary to England, state and U.S. senator, member of the House of Representatives, secretary of State, and, like his father, he also became the president of the United States. But Adams had trouble fitting into the party system of American politics. He had, as Kennedy calls it, an "audacious disdain for narrow partisanship." Adams was the type of politician that many modern day voters might admire: an independent nonpartisan thinker.

Adams was elected as a Federalist, but he voted his conscience, no matter which party was backing a bill. And in 1807, with his constituents calling him a heretic, and his party leaders on the verge of completely denouncing him, Adams struck a fatal blow to his association with his party. The Federalist party, on the whole, believed in appeasing the British, no matter how aggressive their actions were against the Americans. The Republicans, on the other hand, believed it was time to fight back. So, Adams helped the Republicans write a resolution that pledged their support to the president in whatever steps he would take to confront the British navy. The Federalist Party, in reply to Adams actions, wrote that he should "have his head taken off."

Although the cost to Adams for his acting on what he believed to be morally correct did not include the loss of his head, he lost the support of his Federalist Party and his seat in the Senate. Adams was from Massachusetts, the major shipping port in the nation at that time. It was Massachusetts that would be hurt the most from the impending embargo of British goods that Adams helped to write and would eventually sign. When the embargo was put in place, the pressure on Massachusetts was so great that the people of New England began talking of secession from the union. In retaliation for Adams having put New England in such dire straits, the Federalist Party convened nine months prior to the expiration of Adam's Senate term and elected his successor. At this maneuver, Adams felt he had nothing left to do but resign. Although he would be later elected president and even later than that returned to Washington with a seat in the House of Representatives, Adams never again associated himself with any political party. He specifically ran for office only under the condition that he would not be required to give in to any party pressure. Because of his gift of intellect, which was much admired, Adams enjoyed a long, but interrupted political career.

"Great crises produce great men, and great deeds of courage," begins part two of Kennedy's book. He is making reference to the "fratricidal war between North and South in 1861." And one of the great deeds of courage comes from Daniel Webster, another senator from Massachusetts.

Webster's conflict revolved around the issue of slavery. Personally he was against slavery, but when he saw the potential of a civil war that might arise over the issue of slavery, he decided, for the best of the Union to back Henry Clay's Great Compromise. Webster's backing of the Compromise came as a great surprise to both Northerners and Southerners. As a matter of fact, it must have even surprised Webster himself who wrote shortly before committing himself to the Compromise: "I have regarded slavery as a great moral and political evil.… You need not fear that I shall vote for any compromise or do anything inconsistent with the past."

Fearing that the Union was about to split apart, Webster, "after months of insomnia" decided that the only way to avert civil war was to sign the Compromise. He did, but only after using his "spell-binding oratorical ability" to deliver a speech in the Senate that lasted three hours and eleven minutes. Webster's health was not good at the time, and he stimulated himself so he would have the strength to deliver the speech by taking "oxide of arsenic and other drugs." Webster was a politically ambitious man, and in giving his support to Clay by voting in favor of the Great Compromise, he committed political suicide. Although his action helped prevent or at least forestall the imminent danger of "immediate secession and bloodshed," Webster would lose all support for his bid for the presidency—a lifelong ambition.

One of the main conflicts that several of these stories discuss is the struggle that many of the senators had to suffer in choosing between what their constituents wanted them to do and what their conscience dictated as the correct path to follow for the sake of the nation."

Another courageous spirit, a contemporary of Webster's, Thomas Hart Benton was a burly man who liked to throw his weight around. He reportedly said at the beginning of one of his speeches in the Senate: "I never quarrel, sir. But sometimes I fight, sir; and whenever I fight, sir, a funeral follows." Benton had actually once killed a man, a U.S. district attorney who unfortunately challenged Benton to a duel. So when he spoke, people were used to listening to him although they did not always like what he said. Benton was from Missouri, a state that was leaning toward the Southern states in terms of being pro-slavery. Benton leaned toward slavery, but he feared, like Webster, that the issue would split the Union. He decided to neither support the South nor the Northern Abolitionist. He refused to support Clay's Great Compromise and "steered an extraordinarily independent course." Because of his position, Benton knew that he had no chance of ever being re-elected and returning to the Senate.

Feeding upon the anger of the people who had turned against Benton, a Southern Senator by the name of Henry Foote, taunted Benton one day in the Senate by calling Benton a coward. When Benton made an aggressive move toward Foote, Foote pulled out a gun. At this, Benton threw open his coat and made his chest more available. Both Foote and Benton calmed down but not without further verbal assaults slung at one another. A footnote to this story is that Foote declared that he would write a "small book in which … Benton would play a leading role." Benton retorted that he would write a "very large book in which he [Foote] will not figure at all!" Foote's threat never materialized. But Benton did eventually write a book, never mentioning Foote at all.

A year later, as he had feared, Benton was recalled home and replaced by another senator. He did, however, win a seat in the House of Representatives, but he quickly lost all support for his outspoken views and never was re-elected. He continued to campaign, even trying to regain his seat in the Senate at the age of seventy-four. But by this time, he was suffering from throat cancer, and despite the fact that his throat bled when he spoke, he continued to deliver his notoriously ferocious speeches. "But even in death and defeat," says Kennedy, Thomas Hart Benton was victorious. By making his true feelings about the need to save the Union known, he eventually persuaded his state of Missouri to keep from joining the South when it seceded from the Union.

Robert Taft was another senator whose lifelong political goal was the White House. He, too, like John Quincy Adams, was the son of a former president. Taft was the most likely of all Republican presidential candidates in 1946, but he failed to receive his party's nomination both in 1948 and 1952. Whether he lost the nomination because of his courage to speak his conscience is not known, however, the fact remains that he never attained his goal. Taft's popular and political downfall, his stumbling block, was the War Crimes Trials, known as the Nuremberg Trials.

In theory, the Nuremberg Trials, at which Nazis involved in World War II were being tried, had little affect on the United States. There was neither a threat of secession by any states, nor of any civil war in America dependent on the outcome of the trials. Neither was there any political position from either the Republican or the Democratic Parties in regards to the trials. "But Senator Taft was disturbed—and when he was disturbed it was his habit to speak out." And so he did.

Taft took the opportunity of a speech he gave at a college in Ohio to tell the world what was bothering him. "The trial of the vanquished by the victors," he said in reference to the war crimes' trial, "cannot be impartial no matter how it is hedged about with the forms of justice." Because of the horrendous crimes of the Nazis, the sensitivity to these trials cannot be overstated. Emotions prevailed, and the message that Taft had meant to send was obscured and misinterpreted. He was not stating in any way that he thought the Nazis were innocent, or that they should be allowed to go free. Rather his sentiments reflected the same principles upon which be believed the American legal system was based—the principles of justice. "About this whole judgment there is the spirit of vengeance, and vengeance is seldom justice," he said.

Taft was dismayed by the reaction that followed his speech. His thoughts and his convictions were so clear to him that he was totally caught off guard by the ridicule that he experienced. Some of the most disappointing responses came from the American legal system, including the president of the American Bar Association and the chairman of its Executive Committee who "defended the trials as being in accordance with international law." Whether he knew it at the time or not, Taft's political career may have been ruined by his making known his beliefs.

Kennedy ends the chapter on Taft with a quote from Taft on his definition of liberty: "When I say liberty, I mean liberty of the individual to think his own thoughts and live his own life as he desires to think and live." This quote sums up all the sentiments of the previous chapters and possibly all the motives behind the courage as displayed by every senator's story in this book. Kennedy states in the closing pages of Profiles in Courage that he wrote this book to instill hope, and his hope was that these stories would provide inspiration. Then he states: "But they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his own soul." Kennedy also points out that the men in his stories were given the opportunity to make their courage apparent on a public stage. This does not diminish the role of the normal citizen, according to Kennedy, to also take advantage of every opportunity to exhibit their own courage in making hard decisions. It is the moral integrity of a nation's citizens upon which the courage of the nation flows.

Source:

Joyce Hart, Critical Essay on Profiles in Courage, in Nonfiction Classics for Students, The Gale Group, 2001.

Dean Hammer and Adelaide Maudsley

In the following essay, Hammer and Maudsley examine Profiles in Courage within the context of "a Roman conception of profiling and its relationship to courage and politics."

Published in 1955 during John F. Kennedy's tenure as a senator, Profiles in Courage was an instant best-seller, receiving the Pulitzer prize that same year. Yet, for being such a widely acclaimed work, scholars and reviewers have been reluctant to engage the argument of the book. What has focused scholarly attention, instead, is intrigue: who really wrote the book, whose political goals were served by writing the book, and how might Kennedy have secured the Pulitzer prize? When scholars have addressed issues in the book, it is by way of synopses, a generic praise of courage, comments on style, or suggestions that Kennedy never actually lived up to these words.

Part of the difficulty with interpreting Profiles is that we approach the work from within a framework grounded in a twentieth-century conception of politics as a process of interest articulation and aggregation. From this perspective, Profiles appears as little more than a series of "anecdotes" that say nothing substantive about politics but serve to advance the political interests of Kennedy. This framework, though, is particularly unsuitable for interpreting Profiles precisely because the book is engaged in a challenge to this framework. We will argue that Profiles introduces a different conception of politics, one suggested by the two key words in the title: "profile" and "courage." Both the language and arguments in Profiles in Courage seem foreign to us now, but they recall a Roman conception of profiling and its relationship to courage and politics. Understanding this conception requires that we look at some examples of Roman profiling to develop a vocabulary for interpreting this relationship between courage and politics. What emerges is a notion of courage that is not only necessary for, but made possible by, the public nature of politics. The very notion of profiling, with the emphasis on the individual actor in politics and the performance of courageous deeds, appears as a fundamental departure from the prevailing, twentieth-century instrumental conception of politics as "who gets what, when, how." In making this argument, Profiles seeks to rehumanize the political space-to make politics a realm of human action rather than impersonal processes.

Roman Profiling as Politics

It is one of the distinctive features of Roman thought that there are few statements of a political theory. A Roman conception of politics emerges, instead, through a cumulation of profiles. In describing the task of the Roman historian in writing of the "kinds of lives our ancestors live," Livy suggests, "in history you have a record of the infinite variety of human experience plainly set out for all to see; and in that record you can find for yourself and your country both examples and warnings; fine things to take as models, base things, rotten through and through, to avoid." The history that Livy is referring to is a history of individuals rather than of political processes and institutions. These are not biographies, in the modern sense of the term, but profiles meant to capture particular moments in a life. Though the perspectives of the likes of Cicero, Plutarch, Suetonius, and Tacitus vary widely, what they share in their emphasis on profiles is a conception of politics in which individual virtue and public life are inextricably tied to each other. Where Plutarch, for example, focuses on the character of those entering public life, Cicero makes clear how politics not only demands "great" individuals but also makes these individuals "great." The qualities of character necessary for political greatness are many, but foremost among them is courage. The reason for this is because there is an extraordinary risk that one assumes in entering a public realm that was notable, most of all, for its unpredictability. The value of profiles was that they served to recall these public deeds. Through these recollections, as Hannah Arendt suggests, courageous action was made distinctive and the actor was given glory.

Plutarch is, perhaps, the most famous of Roman profilers. Born in 40-45, Plutarch lived during the height of the Roman empire. Much of his writing, however, tells us about the men of the republic who displayed courage, wisdom, self-discipline, moderation, and a love for Rome. In his profiles, Plutarch does not lay out a formal theory of politics or principles of proper political behavior; rather, he uses exemplars to make clear the importance of having individuals of character and virtue in politics.

What is striking in reading Plutarch is that despite his moralistic tone at times, there is a complexity to the profiles he composes. There are no models of perfection, nor are there simple formulas for what counts as greatness. Certainly, Plutarch admires those who exhibit both a virtuous private and public life. But the real test of character, for Plutarch, seems to be public: in the swirl of political conflict and intrigue, "true" character is revealed in our public deeds.

Camillus, for example, is a citizen of humility and piety who was called back from exile to restore Rome. Cato the Censor, on the other hand, is portrayed as sometimes immodest, abusive, and even ungenerous in his private life. But the public life revealed a man of temperance and wisdom who displayed "gravity and severity." Cato the Censor's greatness does not derive from a life of perfection. What seems to warrant Plutarch's accolade of greatness lies in the honor Cato received upon his retirement. A temple inscription commissioned in Cato's honor read: "In honour of Cato the Censor who, when the Roman republic was degenerating into licentiousness, by good discipline and wise institutions restored it." And of Cicero, Plutarch would write that though he perhaps loved glory too much, he managed to maintain a philosophic temperament without "imbibing the passions that are the common consequence" of political office.

Cicero comes to us as both profiled and profiler. Like Plutarch, Cicero is interested in studies of character, especially of men in politics and public life. For example, in On the Commonwealth, Cicero lays out notions of the ideal statesman within the ideal state. For Cicero, an ideal statesman is one who is wise, just, self controlled, and eloquent. Moreover, a "great" politician continually strives to improve himself and "possesses at once the active courage of Marcellus and the wise hesitancy of Maximus." And "at all times he aims to be the model which his subjects may imitate, and the mirror in which they may behold the image of a perfect life and character."

From the perspective of the Romans, Kennedy's Profiles begins to appear not as a series of unrelated anecdotes but as an argument about the nature of politics. The problem of contemporary politics, Profiles seems to suggest, is that both the citizens and political leaders have come to understand it in terms of procedure, self interest, ambition, bureaucracy, and groups."

To pilot the state, leaders must possess certain virtues. Cicero maintains, "we should be permitted to seek the character of a great man in excellence, activity, and energy." Moreover, this man exhibits discipline, exercises restraint, and practices moderation. What is needed most of all, though, is the virtue of "courage," which "includes the quality of high-mindedness and a lofty scorn of death and pain." This is no small issue for Cicero, who would himself be executed for his activities as a political leader, because entering politics entails "grave risks." The risk arises in two ways: first, the political leader cannot control the passionate impulses in others that may follow from words or actions; and second, the actor must ultimately bear the judgment of the citizens. Notes Cicero, in reflecting on his leadership, "Yet even if the result of all I had done to preserve my country had not met with the universal applause which it, in fact, evoked," still, continues Cicero, "I should have borne what had to be borne." The courage to enter politics, to endure the passions of the people, springs from a "love for noble actions" that is "so compelling" that individuals "overcome all the enticements of pleasure and ease." Cicero recalls at one point a letter from Brutes in which Brutes suggested that Cicero should take "courage" because, writes Cicero, "I had performed deeds which, even if I remain silent, will speak for me, and will live on after I am dead."

Cicero would see in others these same qualities of courage. Marcus Cato, for example, "serves as the model of an active and virtuous life for all of us whose interests, like his, are political." Certainly, Marcus Cato could "have enjoyed himself in quiet repose at Tusculum," but he "chose to ride the storms and tempests of public life until advanced age." Some philosophers would say Marcus Cato was a "fool"; however, Cicero believes he was a "great" man who possessed a deep "sense of public duty" and a love for Rome. So, too, Brutus showed "calmness and self effacement in the face of evil" who, through his actions, "restored legality to the government."

At first glance, such testaments to virtue seem obvious and unremarkable. But what emerges in Roman accounts is the suggestion that the political realm is, itself, both constituted by and sustaining of acts of courage. On the one hand, the political realm is sustaining of acts of courage because, for Cicero, "virtue depends entirely on its use." And, for Cicero, there is no higher use of virtue than the "government of a state," which requires the "actual performance, not the mere discussion, of those deeds which your philosophers rehearse in their secluded retreats." The "art" of politics, Cicero states, "when added to great natural abilities, produces … a type of character extraordinary and divine." Cicero makes clear that "there is, indeed, nothing in which human excellence can more nearly approximate the divine than in the foundation of new states or in the preservation of states already founded." Ultimately, what shines through in acts of courage is an individual's "significance" measured not by the "uses" of the work but by "how valuable he is in himself.'

On the other hand, the realm of politics is, itself, sustained by acts of courage. Cicero, for example, recalls the "distinguished men" of the past who endowed, through their actions, the commonwealth with health and vigor. He now laments, though, that "our own generation, after inheriting the commonwealth as if it were a painting, of unique excellence but fading with age, has not only failed to restore its original hues, but had not even troubled to preserve its outlines and the last vestiges of its features." This lack of distinguished men causes the civic and moral rules of living "to perish." For, concludes Cicero, "it is by our defects of character and not by accident that we long since lost the substance of the commonwealth, though we still retain its name."

Kennedy's Profiles of Political Courage

From the perspective of the Romans, Kennedy's Profiles begins to appear not as a series of unrelated anecdotes but as an argument about the nature of politics. The problem of contemporary politics, Profiles seems to suggest, is that both the citizens and political leaders have come to understand it in terms of procedure, self interest, ambition, bureaucracy, and groups. Kennedy writes:

Our political life is becoming so expensive, so mechanized and so dominated by professional politicians and public relations men that the idealist who dreams of independent statesmanship is rudely awakened by the necessities of election and accomplishment.

The danger is that what lies at the heart of politics—human action—becomes devalued, if not completely lost, in a political system that has become mechanized and institutionalized. Profiles, thus, appears as a response to this institutionalization, both through its "profiles," which place individuals at the center of politics, and through its celebration of "courage" as "the most admirable of human virtues." It is a quality of character that is uniquely disclosed in the public performance of words and deeds. Profiles, thus, is not only a "book about courage and politics"; it is a book about their inextricable relationship. For, in an age of politics as interest articulation, the demand for and "challenge of political courage looms larger than ever before."

Profiles proceeds through stories of eight senators who, through their courage, were able to leave their distinctive marks on politics, not necessarily in a set of changes in policy, but by imbuing politics with meaning and value. Like the task of the Roman historian, so Profiles offers exemplars so that we might also practice courage ourselves. "These stories of past courage can define that ingredient-they can teach, they can offer hope, they can provide inspiration. But they cannot supply courage itself. For this each man must look into his soul."

The political concept that emerges cannot be stated in a theoretical guise, precisely because of the variety of expressions of political courage. Of John Quincy Adams, for example, Kennedy writes that "there is a fascination and nobility in this picture of a man unbending, narrow and intractable, judging himself more severely than his most bitter enemies judged him, possessing an integrity unsurpassed among major political figures of our history, and constantly driven onward by his conscience and his deeply felt obligation to be worthy of his parents, their example and their precepts." Writing in a language much like Plutarch, Kennedy suggests that Sam Houston was a man characterized by contradictions. He was a senator in the years leading up to the Civil War, years which brought great crises and demanded political courage. "[G]reat crises produce great men, and great deeds of courage." And Sam Houston's actions were certainly courageous. His courageous act was his vote against the Kansas-Nebraska bill in favor of maintaining the Missouri Compromise.

Courage can take the form of a single act, such as Edmund G. Ross's refusal to vote for impeachment, or can appear through years of service, as with Robert A. Taft. "Whatever their differences, the American politicians whose stories are here retold shared that one heroic quality-courage." Kennedy, like Plutarch and Cicero, tells us that these men displayed certain virtues and attributes of character in the practice of politics: "Most of them, despite their differences, held much in common-the breathtaking talents of the orator, the brilliance of the scholar, the breadth of the man above party and section, and, above all, a deepseated belief in themselves, their integrity and the rightness of their cause." It is the courage to act in politics that we should esteem.

Given a twentieth-century political vocabulary of groups, process, interest, outputs, and power, we are able to understand Profiles in Courage only with great difficulty. But given a Roman vocabulary of political courage, art, exemplars of virtue, and the ennobling nature of politics, we see Profiles in Courage as a work of political thought, as articulating a "new" notion of politics. For both the Romans and Kennedy, individuals of courage and virtue practice and engage in politics as an art. Kennedy writes, in words similar to Cicero, that these men of courage "are simply engaged in the fine art of conciliating, balancing and interpreting the forces and factions of public opinion, an art essential to keeping our nation united and enabling our Government to function." Indeed, the courageous, distinctive acts of individuals constitute politics as it should be practiced and bring a sense of meaning and value to political life.

Profiles asserts that the political arena in the Senate provides men with tests of political courage. It is in politics that men are given the most public opportunity to act courageously, with integrity, and in accordance with their principles and consciences. Concurrently, in their courageous actions, men are able to redeem politics, giving it meaning and value, and thus preventing, or, as is the case in the twentieth century, rescuing, political life from a certain baseness, instrumentality, and meaninglessness. Ultimately, Kennedy seems to be saying that it is men of courage, in the past and in the future, who both bring a certain nobility to politics and renew our faith in the political system. He writes: "For the continued political success of those who withstood the pressures of public opinion, and the ultimate vindication of the rest, enables us to maintain our faith in the long-run judgment of the people."

This notion of the redemptive value of politics recalls the ennobling nature of politics that infuses the language of the Romans. As Cicero comments, "For praise and glory are the only rewards which merit of this calibre looks for; although, even if no such rewards materialized, merit of such a kind would rest content enough with what it had itself achieved, which could not fail, even without formal recognition, to be lodged in the memories of his grateful fellow citizens; and they would make sure it saw the light of day." In a similar vein, Kennedy notes it is only as we have men acting courageously, practicing the art of politics, that we remain a democracy, for the men of courage about which he writes are "men who showed … a real faith in democracy." He writes: "A democracy" that has "no monument of individual conscience in a sea of popular rule-is not worthy to bear the name." For a true democracy is one which "puts its faith in the people … faith that the people will not condemn those whose devotion to principle leads them to unpopular courses, but will reward courage, respect honor and ultimately recognize right." These profiles are about such a democracy, a nation which values courage. Thus, Profiles in Courage seeks to renew our faith in democratic politics by portraying it not as a "robotic" process but as a realm defined by the courageous deeds of individuals. These are moments in which politics ceases to be merely a set of procedures, a game, and an outcome and becomes an ennobling art, a practice of individual character and distinction, and a realm that both allows for and endows greatness.

Source:

Dean Hammer and Adelaide Maudsley, "The Politics of Courage: Kennedy's Profiles as Political Thought," in Journal of American Culture, Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. 65-69.

Sources

"And the Runner-Up Is (Notebook—President John F. Kennedy Wouldn't Qualify for New Profiles in Courage Award Memorializing Him)," in New Republic, Vol. 200, No. 26, June 26, 1989, p. 8.

Gianakaris, C. J., "Plutarch," in Twayne's World Authors Series, G. K. Hall & Co., 1999.

Hammer, Dean, "The Politics of Courage: Kennedy's Profiles as Political Thought," in Journal of American Culture, Vol. 22, No. 2, Summer 1999, pp. 65-70.

Kaiser, David, "The Politician," in New Republic, Vol. 189, November 21, 1983, pp. 15-18.

Review in Publishers Weekly, Vol. 237, No. 5, p. 52.

Schlesinger, Arthur M., "John Fitzgerald Kennedy," in Dictionary of American Biography, Supplement 7: 1961-1965, American Council of Learned Societies, 1981.

Further Reading

Hostrop, Richard W., Leeona S. Hostrop, and John F. Kennedy, Profiles in Courage: Simulations Based on John F. Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize Book (Etc. Simulation, No. 4), Etc. Publications, 1995.

This book contains exercises and reenactments to help students better understand the events of Kennedy's Profiles in Courage. From the Louisiana Purchase to the New Deal, students delve into controversial decisions and issues of American history.

James, Marquis, The Raven: A Biography of Sam Houston, University of Texas Press, 1988.

Nobel Prize-winning author James delves into the life of Sam Houston in an effort to explore his early life and how it affected his actions as a major figure in Texas and United States history. This book won the 1930 Pulitzer Prize for biography.

Mayes, Edward, Lucius Q. C. Lamar: His Life, Times, and Speeches, 1825-1893, AMS Press, 1974.

In this lengthy book, Mayes provides a general overview of Lamar's background and political career, including Lamar's own words as he addressed the American public.

Nagel, Paul C., John Quincy Adams: A Public Life, A Private Life, Knopf, 1997.

Nagel, who has written other books on the Adams family, presents an honest look at the complex personality of John Quincy Adams. He describes Adams's difficult temperament, his political struggles, and his opposition to slavery.

Norris, George William, and Arthur M. Schlesinger Jr., Fighting Liberal: The Autobiography of George W. Norris, University of Nebraska Press, 1992.

In his own words, Norris tells the story of his life, with special emphasis on his political beliefs. This book was written with the help of Kennedy biographer Arthur Schlesinger.

Patterson, James T., Mr. Republican: A Biography of Robert A. Taft, Houghton Mifflin, 1972.

This lengthy volume is one of the few biographies available of Robert A. Taft. It reviews his early life, demonstrating how Taft grew into an impassioned political figure.

Remini, Robert Vincent, Daniel Webster: The Man and His Time, W. W. Norton & Co., 1997.

Remini presents a well-rounded view of Webster as a man who was an eloquent orator, an intelligent statesman, and sometimes a man of questionable morality. Critics praise this book for its complete and honest look at an intriguing figure in early American history.